NEW DELHI, Nov. 3 -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday said no individual, organisation or group could occupy a designated protest site indefinitely, observing that the constitutional right to peaceful demonstration must be balanced against the rights of other protesters and those whose livelihoods are affected by prolonged agitations.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made the observations while hearing a batch of petitions arising from the Delhi protests led by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), including allegations of police excesses, mass detentions, surveillance, internet restrictions and the closure of Metro stations. The proceedings also covered petitions filed by traders' associations, which alleged that demonstrations in central Delhi had severely disrupted commercial activity during the festive season. The bench emphasised that permission to hold demonstrations at a designated location could not give any organisation exclusive control over the space for an unlimited period. During the hearing, the Chief Justice observed that public protest spaces must remain accessible to different groups seeking to express their grievances.
The court said demonstrations should be permitted for specified durations, with authorities clearly outlining the conditions governing their use. The bench observed that farmers, traders, journalists and other sections of society were equally entitled to organise peaceful demonstrations. It stressed that one organisation could not prevent others from exercising the same constitutional right merely because it had already occupied a designated protest venue. The court further said orders granting or refusing permission for demonstrations should clearly explain the reasons for the decision. Where permission was granted, the duration and applicable conditions should be specified. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Kirana Committee Delhi and other traders' associations, submitted that repeated protests had affected businesses across central Delhi, particularly during the festive shopping period.
He said commercial establishments, small traders, daily-wage workers and transport operators had suffered because of disruptions around protest venues. Rohatgi urged the court to consider restricting demonstrations and sit-ins in Delhi for the next two months, arguing that continued disruptions could further damage livelihoods. The bench, however, declined to treat the issue as a choice between the rights of protesters and traders. It observed that the constitutional right to peaceful protest and the right to conduct business and earn a livelihood were competing interests that required careful balancing. The court also noted that livelihood concerns extended beyond business profits to include the earnings of daily-wage workers and small traders.
It directed the traders' associations to include the organisations responsible for the demonstrations as parties to their petition so that their arguments could also be heard. The bench additionally asked the petitioners to submit an assessment of the financial losses allegedly suffered by businesses. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre and Delhi Police, told the court that permission for the July 20 demonstration had been granted for only one day, but protesters continued occupying the designated site for 17 days.
He submitted that the demonstrators subsequently attempted to march towards Parliament without the necessary permission. Mehta argued that organisers of protests and shutdowns should be held responsible for the consequences of their actions. Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for some petitioners, alleged that police personnel had used excessive force against protesters. She also raised concerns about the reported detention of thousands of people during the demonstrations.
The Centre disputed the characterisation of the police action, maintaining that individuals had been removed from protest locations rather than formally detained. Other lawyers argued that commercial disruption had also resulted from police barricading and restrictions on movement, raising questions about whether the authorities' response had been proportionate. The Supreme Court is separately examining the Delhi Police's decision to remove Jantar Mantar from the list of designated protest sites and shift demonstrations to Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground. Petitioners have questioned whether the authorities adequately considered the suitability of Jantar Mantar before withdrawing its status as an authorised demonstration venue. The bench has issued notice on the challenge and indicated that it would examine whether the decision was taken after proper consideration of the relevant circumstances. The controversy has become part of a wider legal examination of restrictions imposed during protests in the national capital. The bench also considered petitions questioning the use of facial recognition technology and other surveillance measures during demonstrations.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the Software Freedom Law Centre, India, raised concerns about the legal basis for facial recognition and its implications for the privacy of protesters. The court observed that the issue went beyond the installation of CCTV cameras in public places. It said the legal questions included whether identifying individuals through facial recognition and matching their images against databases interfered with privacy rights, and whether such surveillance served a legitimate state purpose. The bench also referred to legal provisions governing the collection and use of biometric information. The proceedings also revisited allegations concerning prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita during the demonstrations.
Guruswamy submitted that the relevant orders had not yet been supplied to the petitioners despite an earlier direction from the court. The Centre maintained that its affidavit addressed the matter. The Supreme Court had previously exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash FIRs registered against students involved in the July protests over the NEET-UG examination, while allowing action against individuals identified by police as having serious criminal antecedents. Given the range of issues raised, the bench said it would take up the petitions category-wise and allot fixed periods for arguments. The court's observations highlighted the need to protect the constitutional right to peaceful assembly while ensuring that public protest spaces remain accessible and that demonstrations do not disproportionately affect the rights and livelihoods of others.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.